NEO‐PIAGETIAN THEORY: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

Additional Options

In the present article, the neo‐Piagetian theories that were presented in the previous articles are placed in historical context; then compared and contrasted. It is suggested that all the theories arose in response to a common dilemma, namely that of building a revised theory of development which would preserve the strengths of classical Piagetian theory, while elminating its weaknesses. Since one of the strengths of the classical theory was its ability to explain the universal features of cognitive development, most of the new theories retained the core set of structural postulates which made this explanation possible. This gives the new theories a strong family resemblance with regard to their structural claims. Since one of the weaknesses of the classical theory was its inability to explain the aspects of cognitive development that are not universal, most of the new theories have modified and/or added to this set of core postulates, and specified a set of structural transformation processes which go beyond the classical theory as well. In this latter regard there are more dissimilarities among the new theories than there are similarities. Two reasons for this divergence are suggested. The first is that Piaget's structural transformation model was less clearly falsified than other aspects of his theory, by the data on cognitive‐developmental non‐universality. It was therefore less clear which aspects of the transformation model should be retained, and which eliminated. The second reason is that current theorists are divided on the question of which other theoretical approach ‐ among those that are currently available in other branches of psychology ‐ offers the greatest promise, when it comes to extending Piaget's transformation model in a productive fashion.